Skip to main content

Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy

By
Over at the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer and Nick Loris wrote an excellent nuclear myth-busting piece on topics about proliferation, terrorism, waste, lifecycle emissions, and economics just to name a few. Enjoy.

MYTH: There is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste.

FACT: The nuclear industry solved the nuclear waste problem decades ago.

Spent nuclear fuel can be removed from the reac­tor, reprocessed to separate unused fuel, and then used again. The remaining waste could then be placed in either interim or long-term storage, such as in the Yucca Mountain repository. France and other countries carry out some version of this pro­cess safely every day. Furthermore, technology ad­vances could yield greater efficiencies and improve the process. The argument that there is no solution to the waste problem is simply wrong.

...

MYTH: Incidents at Davis-Besse, Vermont Yankee, and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa demonstrate that continued use of nuclear power will lead to another Chernobyl.

FACT: The real consequences of these three inci­dents demonstrate that nuclear power is safe.

Perhaps the greatest myths surrounding nuclear power concern the consequences of past accidents and their association with current risks. All of these myths depend on a basic construct of flawed logic and misrepresentations that is riddled with logical and factual errors.

...

MYTH: Nuclear energy is not economically viable.

FACT: Nuclear energy already provides about 20 percent of America's electricity.

Investors are not averse to nuclear power. Utility companies with nuclear experience have sought to purchase existing plants, are upgrading their exist­ing power plants, and are extending their operating licenses so that they can produce more energy for a longer time. Indeed, nuclear energy is so economi­cally viable that it provides about 20 percent of America's electricity despite the incredibly high reg­ulatory burden.

...

Comments

Anonymous said…
About the Myth/Fact format, it doesn't work. You should really rephrase the myths such that statements like "nuclear energy is not economically viable" do not appear or simply do not state the myth at all. A recent study from the University of Michigan (Washington Post arcticle about it here ) shows that if you put the false statement next to the true statement, people of all ages will remember 40% of the myths as fact after only 3 days. Except now it's worse, since the source (the article example includes a CDC myth/fact release on the flu) was credible. So in general, those who read the pamphlet truly believe as fact 40% of what the CDC said is NOT true.
December 6, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more